Toolpit
Loading your page…
Toolpit
Loading your page…
See how an ATS reads your CV before a recruiter does.
No file to hand?(sample-invoice.pdf · made-up data)
A heuristic based on text extraction and these checks. It does not predict a recruiter’s decision or guarantee compatibility with every ATS.
Drop a PDF resume to see how a parser reads it.
Most applications are read by software before a person sees them, and it reads the text your PDF contains rather than the page you designed. Drop your resume in and this pulls out the same text a parser would, then reports what it could and could not find: contact details, section headings, dates, quantified achievements, and how well it matches a job description you paste in. Nothing is uploaded.
Drop in your resume as a PDF — the same file you would send an employer.
Read the report: anything marked as needing a fix is what a parser could not read.
Optionally paste a job description to see which of its repeated terms your resume is missing.
No. Toolpit does not upload your file for processing — the tool runs as code in this browser tab, works on the copy your browser opened, and forgets it when you close the tab. You can check this yourself: open your browser’s network panel and run the tool. You will see the page, its scripts and the ads on the site, and — when you save, if you are signed in — one small request that charges 10 tokens to your account. None of them carries your file, its name or anything read from it, because file processing stays on your device.
It starts at 100 and subtracts for each problem, weighted by how badly that problem breaks a real parse. A PDF with no text layer scores zero outright, because nothing else matters if the document cannot be read at all. Missing contact details, missing section headings and unreadable dates cost the most; phrasing issues cost least. The number is a summary of the findings below it, not a verdict from any particular employer’s system.
No, and be wary of anything that claims to. Employers run different systems, configured differently, and none publishes its rules. What this checks is the layer underneath all of them: whether the text can be extracted, whether the sections and dates are findable, and whether your wording matches the posting. Treat it as a checklist of things worth fixing rather than a verdict — it is a set of heuristics written here, so it can flag something a given employer would have accepted, and it can miss something that system would have rejected. Passing it means you have cleared the part that is knowable from the file itself, which is worth doing and is not the same as passing.
Because a parser never sees the design. It reads the text in the order the PDF stores it, so multi-column layouts interleave, text inside images disappears entirely, icon fonts extract as meaningless symbols, and details tucked into a header can be skipped. The fix is rarely to make it uglier — it is to keep the body single-column and put every fact in real, selectable text.
Only where they are true. The keyword check exists to show you which relevant terms you have described in different words, not to supply a list to paste in. A recruiter reads the same document the software scanned, and stuffing — particularly hidden white text — is both detectable and disqualifying.
Every one of these runs in your browser too — no upload, no watermark.